RE: Murder By The Book - Day 3: The Book of Revelation
04-11-2014, 07:34 PM
Just Edited Quotes! JUST EDITED QUOTES!
Well I can't really repeat entire goddamned posts! That would be rude who wants to read all that? If they want the context the original post is cited. What would be the point of quotations if you posted the entire work? Besides, I had several points of suspicion based primarily around Slorange's statement on day 2 (Due to day one being a bit less meaningful to me as I wasn't there for it).
This argument is now somewhat outdated due to intrigue of day 3 (and personal reflection) and is currently shelved for revision. The original idea was as follows.
1. Slorange claimed to have redirected the night kill/kills to Cyber by using a one shot power known as a 'nexus'.
2. Cyber's disappearance prevented players from discovering his role.
3. Town came out worse off after night one.
4. Slorange described his power in detail when making his claim, naming, stating what it did, and classifying it as a one-shot.
5. Slorange claimed he used a one shot power on night one and then criticized the Mafia for using a one-shot night one. (Most Likely a sarcastic joke).
6. After claim was made few people challenged or opposed Slorange's statement, most seemed to take it on faith that Slorange was telling the truth.
7. After Slorange's claim was challenged Schazer vocally defended Slorange using mostly dogmatic reasoning until Slorange stated that it wasn't helping.
8. it has been stated that Slorange has used this gambit before in another game (Unconfirmed)
item (4.) was the first thing to really strike me as odd. I wondered why Slorange would describe so much about his power. The only reason I could think of would be to make him seem less suspicious, or at least less dangerous, to other players. If this was Slorange's intention it certainly seemed to be working.
I couldn't help but feel the events of night one were most beneficial to the Mafia with Slorange's statement only adding to the confusion and lack of information. It seemed a viable gambit for scum to have killed Cyber and then put that kill into doubt, leaving town with no more information than they had on day 1. I could also see this as a third party trying to kill a specific target or sowing confusion by taking credit for a mafia kill. Any way it happened the act seemed to raise the other player's opinion of Slorange rather than lower it.
I had no other suspicions at the time so I decided to vocalize this idea, placing doubt on the veracity of Slorange's claim. The responses I saw led me to feel many were not considering the alternatives, or were inclined to trust Slorange on reputation alone. This strengthened my resolve.
I admit it kind of got away from me here. I believe there was a lot of confusion and misunderstanding in the later posts, especially mine as my writing became somewhat erratic. In the end I just said 'fuck it' and stuck with my guns making a somewhat foolish decision to lock my vote on Slorange until the end of that day.
As I said before, I am reviewing my previous argument.
I still however firmly believe that Slorange for whatever reason is lying about the nature of the power and I have not discounted the possibility that they are lying about how the murder took place.
Well I can't really repeat entire goddamned posts! That would be rude who wants to read all that? If they want the context the original post is cited. What would be the point of quotations if you posted the entire work? Besides, I had several points of suspicion based primarily around Slorange's statement on day 2 (Due to day one being a bit less meaningful to me as I wasn't there for it).
This argument is now somewhat outdated due to intrigue of day 3 (and personal reflection) and is currently shelved for revision. The original idea was as follows.
1. Slorange claimed to have redirected the night kill/kills to Cyber by using a one shot power known as a 'nexus'.
2. Cyber's disappearance prevented players from discovering his role.
3. Town came out worse off after night one.
4. Slorange described his power in detail when making his claim, naming, stating what it did, and classifying it as a one-shot.
5. Slorange claimed he used a one shot power on night one and then criticized the Mafia for using a one-shot night one. (Most Likely a sarcastic joke).
6. After claim was made few people challenged or opposed Slorange's statement, most seemed to take it on faith that Slorange was telling the truth.
7. After Slorange's claim was challenged Schazer vocally defended Slorange using mostly dogmatic reasoning until Slorange stated that it wasn't helping.
8. it has been stated that Slorange has used this gambit before in another game (Unconfirmed)
item (4.) was the first thing to really strike me as odd. I wondered why Slorange would describe so much about his power. The only reason I could think of would be to make him seem less suspicious, or at least less dangerous, to other players. If this was Slorange's intention it certainly seemed to be working.
I couldn't help but feel the events of night one were most beneficial to the Mafia with Slorange's statement only adding to the confusion and lack of information. It seemed a viable gambit for scum to have killed Cyber and then put that kill into doubt, leaving town with no more information than they had on day 1. I could also see this as a third party trying to kill a specific target or sowing confusion by taking credit for a mafia kill. Any way it happened the act seemed to raise the other player's opinion of Slorange rather than lower it.
I had no other suspicions at the time so I decided to vocalize this idea, placing doubt on the veracity of Slorange's claim. The responses I saw led me to feel many were not considering the alternatives, or were inclined to trust Slorange on reputation alone. This strengthened my resolve.
I admit it kind of got away from me here. I believe there was a lot of confusion and misunderstanding in the later posts, especially mine as my writing became somewhat erratic. In the end I just said 'fuck it' and stuck with my guns making a somewhat foolish decision to lock my vote on Slorange until the end of that day.
As I said before, I am reviewing my previous argument.
I still however firmly believe that Slorange for whatever reason is lying about the nature of the power and I have not discounted the possibility that they are lying about how the murder took place.